Who is the GOP's pro-growth candidate?

Republican voters are eyeing their presidential candidates up and down, wondering just what core conservative principles lurk beneath the expensive suits. They received their first inkling this week when the front-runners--namely Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani--started showing some leg on an issue that has the potential to galvanize the race: pro-growth economic policies.

Tax cuts and pro-growth talk are staples of modern Republican primaries, but 2008 could elevate those issues to new heights. The base is in the dumps, disenchanted with a party that has lost sight of its economic moorings. This at a time when entitlements are ballooning, and the tax code threatening to devour millions more Americans. Add it up, and there's a wide-open opportunity for a bold GOP candidate to capture imaginations with a sweeping economic plan, rooted in tax reform, but extending to an overhaul of everything from entitlements to trade.

Have no doubt that at least a few contenders are also banking on a fireball economic plan to deflect attention from their more problematic social-issue records. The big question is whether any one can convince GOP primary voters that they are the real, Reagan deal. To answer that, it's worth taking a look at the top tier's advisers, records and latest moves.

The guy with the momentum is former entrepreneur and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. He's signed an anti-tax pledge, bemoaned excessive regulation, called for cheaper energy with domestic drilling, and laid out (in detailed Power Point presentations) the coming fiscal disasters that are Social Security and Medicare. He took another plunge yesterday, unveiling a broad-strokes tax agenda.

While short on details, he laid out a marker for the field, calling for lower marginal tax rates, a more competitive corporate tax and the end of the death tax. This isn't necessarily a surprise, given Mr. Romney's economic team is largely made up of the Bush tax-cut brain trust, including former Council of Economic Advisers chief Glenn Hubbard, his successor, Greg Mankiw, and Brian Reardon. Mr. Romney also scored a coup with economist John Cogan, who knows budgets inside-out, and is a tax-cutter to boot.

What attracted many of these economists to the Romney team was the former governor's success, in a liberal state, of beating back big-tax proposals and instead choosing to erase deficits by hacking away at spending. Mr. Romney's challenge will now be in convincing economic conservatives that his tax plan, and other pro-growth talk, is more than just election rhetoric. In particular, he'll need to do some explaining about his Massachusetts health-care plan, which Mr. Romney touted as a market-based reform, but was more about new government regulation.

The team least happy with this early Romney tax marker is surely John McCain's. The super-senator has been unable to get much traction with this second bid for the White House, thanks in part to conservatives' distrust of his economic credentials. The maverick was born out of the old austerity wing of the GOP, tough on spending, big on balanced budgets, grave about the need for entitlement reform. These were the traits Mr. McCain stressed in his last run, and by the look of his new team, little will change this time around.

His advisors, former CBO head Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Phil Gramm and former Fed economist Kevin Hassett, are in line with Mr. McCain's own balanced-budget, anti-spending views. There are also smart, free-market gurus in residence, including former FTC head Tim Muris, and Bob Zoellick, who will underline Mr. McCain's tough stance on free trade (at least when he isn't advocating steel tariffs).

What's missing is a serious tax-cutter. This may be understandable, given Mr. McCain has never shown much evidence he believes in supply-side economics. He was one of three Republicans to oppose the 2003 Bush tax cuts, and did so with class-warfare language to make Ted Kennedy proud. He's also voiced his openness to Social Security tax hikes, and his opposition to getting rid of the death tax. Mr. McCain's tack, in 2000 and now, is that the road to smaller government runs through spending cuts.

The Arizonan, under pressure from the right, has now called to extend the Bush tax cuts, although rumblings within his camp suggest that any tax proposals beyond that will probably be limited to tinkering within the tax code--a "revenue-neutral" reform. It's something, but it isn't going to score points with those who are already wary of his supply-side credentials. It also misses the point that--no matter how tough an anti-spending line Mr. McCain takes--it's going to take a growing economy to fund even reformed Social Security and Medicare programs. And growth only comes with smart tax policy.

The dark horse remains Mr. Giuliani. The former mayor only recently brought on a chief economic advisor, Michael Boskin, who chaired the Council of Economic Advisers under Bush I, and sports his own pro-growth street cred. But Mr. Giuliani may have got his biggest boost when Mr. Flat Tax himself, Steve Forbes, stepped up behind the New Yorker. (See the op-ed nearby.) Mr. Giuliani accepted that endorsement with his own flirtatious language about the merits of a flax tax, leaving the door open for something creative.

Like Mr. Romney, the former mayor will need something to convince conservatives he's pro-growth genuine. The Yankees fan has been reminding audiences that he cut taxes 23 times as mayor of New York, and Mr. Boskin has explained that this led to record Big Apple surpluses. Less mentioned is just how ably Mr. Giuliani tore through some of those surpluses, in particular the later years--or his calls for taxpayer-funded baseball stadiums.

Pushing and prodding these front-runners, meanwhile, will be folks like Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, who is still solidly in the second tier, but has been impressing some fiscal conservatives with his alternative flat-tax proposals. Meanwhile, the eight million pound gorilla--not yet in the room--is Newt Gingrich, who is watching to see what economic plans come, and deciding if he can fill a void.

Like everything in this sped-up race, the economic talk is coming early (President Bush didn't unveil his own tax plan until December 1999). But if nothing else, it means Republican voters might get to watch their presidential aspirants engage in good, long debate about economic principles. Let's hope.

Ms. Strassel is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board, based in Washington. Her column appears Fridays.
 

Questions for Mitt Romney

http://myclob.pbwiki.com/Questions

Actual questions asked from Mitt Romney Interviews , organized by subject. Click on the question for the answer.

Issues

Iraq

  1. Do you keep Bush or let him go?
  2. But how do you explain why all that planning wasn't done ?
  3. Yet, you support the president's decision to send more troops right now?
  4. Are you confident the surge is going to work ?

Iran

  1. Does the president have the authority he needs to take military action against Iran.

 

  1. what are the big issues?
  2. How could you fix the budget?
  3. Now you describe yourself as a Reagan Republican Describe the journey .

 

North Korea

  1. Is the president nuclear deal with North Korea a good one .

Abortion

  1. So do you now believe that abortion is murder ?
  2. should women who have abortions and doctors who perform them be jailed ?
  3. if it's killing, why should states have leeway ?
  4. what do you believe the punishment should be for an abortion ?

Gay Rights

  1. Should gays and lesbians be able to serve openly and honestly in the military?

Character

  1. How do you convince voters that some of these changes are sincere, coming from conviction?

Guns

  1. When did you join the NRA?

Healthcare

  1. Do you think the country should have a Massachusetts healthcare plan .

Taxes

  1. Why did you sign a pledge ruling out any tax increases ?

Sports

  1. What do you think of what happened to Bode Miller and his attitude ?

Business

  1. What does Bain do?
  2. what impact did you have on the creation of Staples ?
  3. how old were you when the Staples thing started ?
  4. What other boards have you served on ?
  5. Have you had a failure that you can talk about in business ?

Politics

  1. How did you get elected governor of the state of Massachusetts ?

Massachusetts

  1. Why did you pick Massachusetts as a place to stay after school ?
  2. You are 47 now?

Decision to Run for President

  1. When you decided not to run again for governor, how much did your thought of running for president enter into that discussion?

 

Father

Money

  1. Why did your father not give you any of his inheritance ?
  2. Did he have a philosophy that he didn't want to pass on a lot of money to his kids.

 

  1. When you father thought of running for president in '64, and then actually ran for a while in '68, how old were you in those years and what did you experience during that time?
  2. You can't be born out of the country and run for president, how did that work?
  3. And when did he move to Utah?
  4. At some point I noticed you were on the Points of Light Foundation board, but you go back to either your father starting the volunteer organization that merged into Points of Light? Explain that.

 

Brain Washing

  1. Well, you know, if you ever look at the history of your father and running for president, they all say the same thing, it's all the "brainwashing" comment. Why would that have been the issue? I mean, why would he have been accused of saying something stupid about being brainwashed in Vietnam?

 

Background

 

  1. Why did you pick Mitt over Willard?
  2. Where were you born?

 

Education

  1. In you history, it includes Stanford for how long ?
  2. You finished first in your class at Brigham Young University in Utah ?
  3. Why did you go to Brigham Young?
  4. How did you -- how were able to get an MBA and a law degree at the same time?
  5. And clearly it would be why you did well and, as you know, you finished well enough to give the valedictory address -- the question I want to ask you though is why do you think you did well? Other than having a lot of brainpower, did you have an approach to education?

 

Religion

  1. Who was Brigham Young?
  2. Well, if you go back -- and I found the name Pratt in your background who was some circuitous route related to Joseph Smith who was one of the founders of Mormonism.
  3. Are you prepared to deal with attacks on your religion ?
  4. Do you have an evangelical problem?
  5. Has there been a mood change in the country about the importance of talking about religion?
  6. Has there been a mood change in the country about the importance of talking about religion?
  7. How does your faith inform your politics ?

 

 

Mission

  1. One place that I found that you almost died (His Mission)

 

Personality

  1. What type of leader are you?

 

Personalities

  1. What would you copy from what Bush has done, if anything ?
  2. Why is Dwight Eisenhower one of your favorite presidents ?

 

Personal

  1. What's a normal day like?
  2. What time do you get up?
  3. What's the toughest personal crisis you've ever had to face ?
  4. Are you worried that the stress of the campaign may inflame the MS ?

 

Divorce

  1. Is divorse something voters should take into account ?

 

 

Source

Hugh Hewitt

Hewitt graduated from Harvard College cum laude with an A.B. in Government in 1978. He was Order of the Coif at the University of Michigan Law School and received his Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree in 1983, magna cum laude. Hewitt clerked for Judges Roger Robb and George MacKinnon on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from 1983-84, and then went on to serve as Special Assistant to Attorneys General William French Smith and Edwin Meese, Assistant Counsel in the White House Counsel's Office, General Counsel for the National Endowment for the Humanities and the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, where he finished his career in the Reagan Administration as Deputy Director of the agency, having been confirmed by a voice vote in the Senate.

Hewitt returned to California to oversee construction of the Richard Nixon Library and Birthplace as the Library's executive director from groundbreaking through dedication and opening at the request of former President Richard Nixon, for whom he had worked as a ghostwriter between college and law school in San Clemente, California, and New York City.

Hugh has written many books:

1987: ''First Principles: A Primer of Ideas for the College-Bound Student'' (ISBN 0-89526-793-4)

1996: ''Searching for God in America: The Companion Volume to the Acclaimed TV Series'' (ISBN 0-7881-9914-5)

1998: ''The Embarrassed Believer'' (ISBN 0-8499-1419-1)

2003: ''In, But Not Of : A Guide to Christian Ambition'' (ISBN 0-7852-6395-0)

2004: ''If It's Not Close, They Can't Cheat: Crushing the Democrats in Every Election and Why Your Life Depends on It'' (ISBN 0-7852-6319-5)

2005: ''Blog: Understanding the Information Reformation That's Changing Your World'' (ISBN 0-7852-8804-X)

2006: ''Painting the Map Red: The Fight to Create a Permanent Republican Majority'' (ISBN 0-89526-002-6)

2006: ''A Guide to Christian Ambition: Using Career, Politics, and Culture to Influence the World'' (ISBN 0-7852-8871-6)

2007: ''A Mormon in the White House?: 10 Things Every American Should Know about Mitt Romney'' (ISBN 1-59698-502-X)

Click here to listen to Hugh Hewitt's interview with Erick Erickson.

Scroll down to "Monday March 26, 2007", and click on "Listen now".

Click here for an update on what is going on between them.

Go here, and you will see a big "Rudy" add at the top of the page.

Read the interview with Newt from today here and more about it here.

Just look at the archive of his show here, and look at some of the people he has had on.

Yesterday he had Fred Thompson supporter Zach Wamp.

Hugh has also got Newt coming back next week to talk with Romney, or McCain (or both). Read more about it here .

Hugh is very tough.

For an example, listen to the interview from Tuesday March 6, 2007 with Los Angeles Times columnist Joel Stein after an ill-advised column ran against the troops. Or listen to the hour long interview with the very contentious Andrew Sullivan about his newest book (hour two from the same day). Or go to Friday March 2, 2007 to listen to Helen Thomas and John Zogby hang up on Hugh.

Hugh is also constitutional law professor.

~ Mike

The Passion of Mitt Romney

The Passion of Mitt Romney

I am picking out a few of the positive parts. If you want to read the negative parts about Romney, you are going to follow the link yourself.

Like Hewitt, were the election held today, I would vote for Mitt Romney...

...Mitt Romney is a man the nation would be lucky to have as its President if only because of his character: a hard-working, grounded, moral and smart family man.

Actually, I take that back. Here is a negative part:

The book is fraught with frustrating contradictions. For example, Hewitt writes that "everyone knows the GOP nominee must in many ways be the anti-Bush," but then he goes on to praise Romney for being a "former governor," a "billionaire venture capitalist," a student of Harvard's Business School, building "a reputation as . . . [a] successful entrepreneur," and using a CEO management style allowing all opinions to be debated before he, as CEO, makes the ultimate decision applying all the facts and opinions presented--all attributes that echo candidate George W. Bush.

This is a "frustrating contradiction"? Man what logic! Some how the anti-Bush can not be a governor! This is 3rd grade logic, like everyone from Massachusetts or California is bad. Republicans can be some of the dumbest people on the planet, that only look at the surface of things. Romney must be just exactly like Bush because Romney is a Governor. You know what Erick? Just stay out of the debate, because you are going to embarrass yourself.

Erick. Was George Bush a "billionaire venture capitalist"? This would seem like an obvious question to ask yourself before publishing your stupid review of Hugh's book.

No. As a matter of fact, most people on this planet know that George W. Bush was not in fact a "billionaire venture capitalist".

Check it out for yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush

Bush went into his father's business: Oil.

On the next one you are right. Bush and Romney both graduated from Harvard Business school. Harvard Business school is easy. Romney also graduated from Harvard Law School. Bush did not. So there is a difference. But again, this gets at your very basic ability to understand very simple concepts. Somehow you think Romney cannot be the anti-Bush because they graduated from the same school? You are an idiot.

Then you say, "building "a reputation as . . . [a] successful entrepreneur,"

Again. Did Bush build "a reputation as . . . [a] successful entrepreneur,"? No. This would go to prove Hugh's point that in fact Mitt Romney is much different than Bush. You say Hugh's book filled with "frustrating contradiction". No one has every accused bush of being a successful entrepreneur. This is not a very good reason to agree with your conclusion, that Hugh's book is filled with "frustrating contradictions". Romney's career contrast very will to Bush's. Your review is filled with frustrating idiocy.

Your last accusation as an example of Hugh's contradiction: "and using a CEO management style allowing all opinions to be debated before he, as CEO, makes the ultimate decision applying all the facts and opinions presented--all attributes that echo candidate George W. Bush." Who, Erick, has ever accused Bush of using this MO?

Then Erick says perhaps the weirdest thing I have ever heard in regard to the political campaign. It may be the biggest blunder of any commentator so far, speaking of 2008. He somehow asserts that Mormon Missionaries are going to be working for MR08… He says…

If we can expect heavy participation by Mormon missionaries as grassroots activists for an American presidential campaign, why can we not ask questions about Romney's Mormon beliefs and why can Americans not be concerned? After all, contrary to the popular perception of the left and media, there were no organized platoons of Presbyterian missionaries knocking on doors for Reagan, brigades of Baptists for Bill Clinton, nor marauding packs of Methodists for George W. Bush. This is something relatively unseen and new to most Americans --including many deeply evangelical Americans who believe Mormonism to be a cult, or at best a religion that has some shared roots, but is fundamentally grounded in heresies.

He then goes on to say:

Nonetheless, his failure to strongly advocate for life while governor, coupled with the fact that every campaign he has run for public office until now he's been in favor of abortion rights and in favor of Roe v. Wade, gives many sophisticated and educated pro-life advocates pause. Hewitt's failure to address Romney's statements in 2002 is a deficiency in an otherwise good argument and weakens his defense against Romney's pro-life critics.

What? "Every campaign he has run for public office until now". Yes, Erick, that would be 3. If you still think Romney has an Abortion problem, I don't care about you Erick. I think you have an abortion problem. You, apparently are much better than Ronald Reagan. You, apparently, are much smarter than George H. Bush, who were both pro-choice. You, apparently are better than Tommy Thompson, and Brownback who were seen as pro-choice.

Erick finishes his review with this:

Hugh does not mention Romney's two major weaknesses. The first is the appearance by Romney of being a political opportunist, having been in favor of abortion before he was against it, against President Bush's tax cuts before he was for them, for campaign finance reform before he was against it, for liberal immigration reforms before he was against them, etc.

Hugh did not mention them, because you are just making stuff up. Romney was never against president Bush's tax cuts. And it is just stupid to say that Romney was for campaign finance reform before he was against it. I saw a speech from Romney where he said incumbents have too much money. Is this an official endorsement of McCain Feingold in your brilliant mind? Is that how you work? All policy positions can be boiled down to "for campaign finance reform" or "against campaign fianance reform". You don't want to know anything about the specifics of which reforms someone is talking about?

Erick is the problem with the republican party. He is stupid, and he is proud of it. He is not ashamed of stupid logic. He is not ashamed of saying stuff than can easily be refuted. As long as he speaks on Red State, and pulls the trigger on who can talk and who cannot, as long as someone from the bad blue states never talks to him, as long as he never talks to someone who disagrees with him, this country will suck.

I like rough drafts. I wrote this when I was angry. I know I probably said some stupid stuff, but sometimes I listen to Michael Savage. It is sometimes good to just get stuff off your chest.

What do you think?

~ Mike

Governor Mitt Romney and New Hampshire

I'm looking for someone from New Hampshire to help with this site: http://myclob.pbwiki.com/New-Hampshire

Governor Mitt Romney and New Hampshire

  • Governor Mitt Romney; NH Federation of Republican Women's Lilac Dinner; Radisson Center of New Hampshire; Manchester, NH; June 3, 2005
  • "He's conservative enough for my taste. I'm very strong on life issues. He made some courageous vetoes."
  • "I respect his experience, both at the Olympics and in dealing with an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature...I just love his whole approach to things."
    • Former New Hampshire Republican House Speaker Donna Sytek
      • Sarah Liebowitz, "Romney Partygoers Like What They Hear," Concord NH Monitor, 12/22/06

 

Mitt Romney New Hampshire Press Releases

 

Governor Mitt Romney traveled to Concord, NH to participate in a community forum and later to Hollis, NH where he met with local residents at the Hollis Pharmacy. Romney then delivered keynote speeches at the Nashua Chamber of Commerce Business Eminence Awards Luncheon in Nashua, NH and the Hampton/Derry/Portsmouth Lincoln Day Dinner in Hampstead.

 

  • Governor Mitt Romney; NH Federation of Republican Women's Lilac Dinner; Radisson Center of New Hampshire; Manchester, NH; June 3, 2005

 

 

Governor Romney in New Hampshire

Governor Mitt Romney began his trip to New Hampshire by delivering health care policy remarks at the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center. Romney's son Craig then joined him to visit with the Thomson Family and local residents at the Mount Cube Sugar Farm, and later to tour the Isaacson Steel Plant. The Romneys ended their day in Shelburne at a reception with Gorham area residents.

 

 

http://www.newhampshireforromney.com/

My favorite quote of all time on Mitt Romney!

VDH

HH: What I like is that he's a voracious reader, not only your books, but things like The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright, Mark Steyn's America Alone. I think this is pretty rare these days, to find curiosity at that level, and at that sort of voracious appetite for information. What do you talk about with him?

VDH: Well, we talk about history just like you and I talk about. We talk about foreign policy, he talked about the plan or the effort to democratize the Middle East, the shortfalls, the problems, the liabilities, and you know what? He came to the Hoover Institution and got in front of 40 senior fellows. And in that room there were Nobel Prize winners, a lot of egos, too. And he held court with them, and there were a lot of hostile questions, and he went for an hour and a half, head to head, with these people. When he walked out of that room, I think everybody was impressed with him. He didn't pull any punches, and he could argue and was as logical as any Hoover fellow, and I was more impressed with him than I was with my colleagues.

Victor Davis Hanson is awesome. If it was up to me, you would have to have a PhD in History in order to be president. If you showed me someone with a PhD in history, and an MBA with business experience, I would vote for him over Romney (In fact I'm kind of an elitist that way. Instead of voting for a person, I would like to vote for qualifications. Then we take all the money that we spend on politics, and find the person who most closely matches what the voters wanted that year. For instance in 2008 we may want someone who speaks Arabic).

Anyone who agrees with McCain that Donald Rumsfeld is the worst Secretary of State in the history of the USA needs to read this article from VDH.

This from wiki:

Hanson sees rural values as underpinning successful democracies, whether they be of ancient Athens or the modern United States. Although he reports that he is a member of the Democratic Party, he holds conservative or neoconservative views on many issues and has stated that he voted for George W. Bush in the 2000 and 2004 elections. Hanson feels that the current Democratic party does not have a morally responsible approach to foreign policy and no longer addresses the concerns of ordinary Americans, writing: "The Democratic Party reminds me of the Republicans circa 1965 or so—impotent, shrill, no ideas, conspiratorial, reactive, out-of-touch with most Americans, isolationist, and full of embarrassing spokesmen."

Once again from VDH, my favorite quote, and the type of reason that I support Romney, even more than anything Hugh Hewitt, Romney, or his Family has said:

Well, we talk about history just like you and I talk about. We talk about foreign policy, he talked about the plan or the effort to democratize the Middle East, the shortfalls, the problems, the liabilities, and you know what? He came to the Hoover Institution and got in front of 40 senior fellows. And in that room there were Nobel Prize winners, a lot of egos, too. And he held court with them, and there were a lot of hostile questions, and he went for an hour and a half, head to head, with these people. When he walked out of that room, I think everybody was impressed with him. He didn't pull any punches, and he could argue and was as logical as any Hoover fellow, and I was more impressed with him than I was with my colleagues

.

Romney is the real deal.

For the full interview with Hugh Hewitt, and a partical "review" of the movie 300, go here.
~ Mike

Iran seizes British navy personnel in Iraqi waters...

Iran seizes British navy personnel in Iraqi waters...

Click here for today's story.

Click here for Romney on Iran.

Scary stuff.

~ Mike

"Two Mitt Romney Ideas"

"Two Mitt Romney Ideas"

But I know teachers in public school who are required to pay union fees as a condition of holding their job. That strikes me as immoral, particularly since some people are opposed to labor unions in principle. I don't know a lot about the laws on this issue, but given what I know about unions and what I'd like them to be like, I have to be attracted to this idea.

Click here for a great take on Romney.

~ Mike

More of the Romney family on MySpace

More of the Romney family on MySpace

See all their profiles here. Luckily all of them don't have the same taste in music as their Dad.

I saw this picture under Craig's profile.

Craig Romney

~ Mike

The Phoniest Scandal Of The Century (So Far) By DICK MORRIS Published on TheH

 

The Phoniest Scandal Of The Century (So Far)

By DICK MORRIS

Published on TheHill.com on March 20, 2007.

Printer-Friendly Version

When will the Bush administration grow some guts? Except for its resolute — read: stubborn — position on Iraq, the White House seems incapable of standing up for itself and battling for its point of view. The Democratic assault on the administration over the dismissal of United States attorneys is the most fabricated and phony of scandals, but the Bush people offer only craven apologies, half-hearted defenses, and concessions. Instead, they should stand up to the Democrats and defend the conduct of their own Justice Department.

There is no question that the attorney general and the president can dismiss United States attorneys at any time and for any reason. We do not have civil servant U.S. attorneys but maintain the process of presidential appointment for a very good reason: We consider who prosecutes whom and for what to be a question of public policy that should reflect the president's priorities and objectives. When a U.S. attorney chooses to go light in prosecuting voter fraud and political corruption, it is completely understandable and totally legitimate for a president and an attorney general to decide to fire him or her and appoint a replacement who will do so.

 http://vote.com/mailmachpro/clink_track.php?cust_id=277153&link_id=63

The Democratic attempt to attack Bush for exercising his presidential power to dismiss employees who serve at his pleasure smacks of nothing so much as the trumped-up grounds for the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson in 1868. Back then, radical Republicans tried to oust him for failing to obey the Tenure of Office Act, which they passed, barring him from firing members of his Cabinet (in this case, Secretary of War Edwin Stanton) without Senate approval. Soon after Johnson's acquittal, the Supreme Court invalidated the Tenure of Office Act, in effect affirming Johnson's position.

But instead of loudly asserting its view that voter fraud is, indeed, worthy of prosecution and that U.S. attorneys who treat such cases lightly need to go find new jobs, the Bush administration acts, for all the world, like the kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar. All Republican supporters of the administration can do is to point to Bill Clinton's replacement of U.S. attorneys when he took office. Because the president and the attorney general insist on acting guilty, the rest of the country has no difficulty in assuming that they are.

Bush, Rove, Gonzales and Co. should explain why the U.S. attorneys were dismissed by emphasizing the importance of the cases they were refusing to prosecute. By doing so, they can turn the Democratic attacks on them into demands to go easy on fraudulent voting. A good sense of public relations — and some courage — could turn this issue against the Democrats for blocking Bush's efforts to crack down on the criminals he wanted prosecuted.

In making such a big deal over the routine exercise of a presidential prerogative to fire these prosecutors, the Democrats, led by Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) may be biting off more than they can chew. Unless the administration turns and aggressively defends its decision to get rid of these particular appointees, it could be left holding the bag and defending the U.S. attorneys' decision to avoid prosecuting voter-fraud cases.

If the administration continues to follow its run-and-hide policy, it will look terrible asserting claims of executive privilege as it seeks to shield its appointees from Senate interrogation and its documents from committee scrutiny. But if it contextualizes the issue by using the specific failings of the dismissed appointees to prosecute particular cases, it will assume the high ground and its procedural objections will be seen in a more positive light by the American people. If only the administration would show some courage.

Hillary's Secrets Free Report:  Click here now!

________________________________________________________________________

PLEASE FORWARD THIS E-MAIL TO FRIENDS AND FAMILY WHO MAY BE INTERESTED IN DICKMORRISREPORTS!

TO SUBSCRIBE FOR FREE TO DICKMORRISREPORTS:

If you have received this email from a friend and want to receive free copies of all of Dick Morris' and Eileen McGann's commentaries, sign up at www.dickmorris.com.

TO UNSUBSCRIBE AUTOMATICALLY FROM DICKMORRISREPORTS:

Please use the "REMOVE ME FROM THE LIST" link at the bottom of this email to unsubscribe.

Please do not reply to the DickMorrisReports mailbox to unsubscribe.  This mailbox is for comments only. 

THANK YOU!

***Copyright Eileen McGann and Dick Morris 2007***




Remove me from the list
Update your info




AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

Death by a thousand idiots...

Here is another example of the lie that the MSM keeps repeating about Romney.

"Critics have accused Romney of shifting his position on abortion, gun control and gay rights to suit a conservative national GOP electorate now that he's no longer governor of a liberal-leaning state."

Does it matter what critics say, if it is blatantly untrue? Should the Washington Post repeat criticisms that have no foundation in truth?

The Washington post will say, "it's not our fault, we are just repeating what others have accused Romney of." It's not our job to bring you the truth, we just report the news.

This is the problem with the media. Because they are so liberal, we can never trust them.

I just told my friend that Hillary Clinton picks her nose. If Hillary Clinton was the most conservative individual in the race, the Washington Post would say, "Critics say Hillary Clinton Picks here nose" without even looking into any evidence to support the accusation.

There is no evidence to support the belief that Romney has changed his position on gun control, and gay rights. Any reporter that quotes "critics" that accuse Romney of changing positions on these topics is wholly owned by the DNC.

~ Mike

Permalink 02:23:41 pm, Categories: 2008, 541 words   English (US)

NPR

Yesterday on NPR I heard some smug, intellectually vapid, self-righteous, commentator reviewing, as the political expert, the chances of all the 2008 candidates. They were asking if any of the candidates had a "big idea". He claimed that Mitt Romney was "for abortion rights and gay rights before he was against them" and he actually laughed at what he thought was his joke, as though we haven't heard the same moronic drooling commentators repeating the same DNC slogan for how long now?

Every single person on the planet fits, on a continuum between the person who believes any birth control at all is evil, and the belief that murder of an 18 year old should be allowed. Mitt Romney went from being personally pro-life, but not imposing his view on the citizens of Massachusetts, and declaring a truce on the issue, to making a pro-life stance. This is a change in wording not policy. There are many pro-life people who believe, like Romney, that Abortion should be legal in Massachusetts.

But Romney is still for abortion rights! He believes that in the case of rape, incest, or the life of the mother, abortions should be legal. Even this is a vast oversimplification. Romney believes states should have the right to set their own policy with regard to abortion. Romney is, like every person on the planet, also against some abortion rights. H, like every other sane person on the planet, would not through a party, and give someone a nice "congratulations… good job!" if they had a late term abortion on a 9-month old fetus/baby."

So this jerk, who made a joke out of Romney's belief is laughing at everyone on the planet including himself. I have a different belief on abortion every day you ask me, just like the American public.

But the reference to being "for abortion rights and gay rights before you were against them" compares Romney to John Kerry. Is this a good comparison? How many different positions could John Kerry take on giving the president the right to declare war on Iraq? There were two possibilities: Give President Bush the right to declare war, or don't give the president the right to declare war. So John Kerry was being a complete idiot when he said that ""I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

No John. There were only two options with regard to funding. However on Abortion there are as many different positions as there are people. And Ms. NPR commentator, Romney has not changed his position on Civil Unions, or Gay Marriage (see above). Romney has not even changed his policy on abortion. He has just changed what he is calling himself. He did not want to call himself pro-life. Now he does. He has always been for the right of mothers to have abortions, if they were raped, had incest, or the mother's life was in danger. These are specific positions. He has never changed his position. He has just changed what he calls himself. John Kerry tried explaining actually positions. He tried taking both side of a simple policy. Romney has changed the way he talks about himself on a single very complicated issue.

~ Mike

More on gay rights

 

This from Wikipedia:

Romney has strongly opposed same-sex marriage and civil unions. He has continually stressed the need to "protect the institution of marriage" while denouncing discrimination against gays and lesbians. "Like me, the great majority of Americans wish both to preserve the traditional definition of marriage and to oppose bias and intolerance directed towards gays and lesbians," Romney said in 2004. (more)

On June 2, 2006, Romney sent a letter to each member of the U.S. Senate urging them to vote in favor of the Marriage Protection Amendment. In the letter, Romney stated that the debate over same-sex unions is not a discussion about "tolerance", but rather a "debate about the purpose of the institution of marriage". Romney wrote, "Attaching the word marriage to the association of same-sex individuals mistakenly presumes that marriage is principally a matter of adult benefits and adult rights. In fact, marriage is principally about the nurturing and development of children. And the successful development of children is critical to the preservation and success of our nation."

I think Garrison Keillor has recently agreed with Romney. (more)

Back to Wikipedia.org...

Romney's letter was his second attempt to persuade the U.S. Senate to pass the Marriage Protection Amendment. On June 22, 2004 he testified before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, urging its members to protect the traditional definition of marriage. "Marriage is not an evolving paradigm," said Romney, "but is a fundamental and universal social institution that bears a real and substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of all of the people of Massachusetts."

Romney was heavily involved in attempts to block implementation of the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that legalized same-sex marriage in 2003. Romney criticized the decision as harming the rights of children:

" They viewed marriage as an institution principally designed for adults. Adults are who they saw. Adults stood before them in the courtroom. And so they thought of adult rights, equal rights for adults…Marriage is also for children. In fact, marriage is principally for the nurturing and development of children. The children of America have the right to have a father and a mother. (more) "

In 2004, the Massachusetts General Court attempted to address the issue of gay marriage before the implementation of the Goodridge decision. During a constitutional convention, the predominately Democratic legislature approved an amendment that would have banned gay marriage, but established civil unions. An initial amendment offered by House Speaker Thomas Finnernan that would have simply banned gay marriage without a provision for civil unions was narrowly defeated. The compromise amendment needed to be approved in a second constitutional convention to be held a year later before it would have appeared on a state election ballot. The amendment was voted down in the subsequent convention and never made it before the voters of Massachusetts.

Romney reluctantly backed the compromise amendment, viewing it as the only feasible way to ban gay marriage in Massachusetts. "If the question is, 'Do you support gay marriage or civil unions?' I'd say neither," Romney said of the amendment. "If they said you have to have one or the other, that Massachusetts is going to have one or the other, then I'd rather have civil unions than gay marriage. But I'd rather have neither." (more)

In June 2005, Romney abandoned his support for the compromise amendment, saying that the amendment confused voters who oppose both gay marriage and civil unions. The amendment was defeated in the General Court in 2005 when both supporters of same-sex marriage and opponents of civil unions voted against it. In June 2005, Romney endorsed a petition effort led by the Coalition for Marriage & Family that would ban gay marriage and make no provisions for civil unions. (more) Backed by the signatures of 170,000 massachusetts residents the new amendment was certified as a valid referendum on September 7, 2005 by Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas Reilly. The measure needs the approval of fifty legislators in two consecutive sessions of the Massachusetts General Court to be placed on the ballot. The Massachusetts legislature however declined to vote on the initiative in two consecutive sessions held on July 12, 2006 and November 9, 2006. Romney responded by joining former Boston Mayor Raymond Flynn and eight others to file a complaint with the state's Supreme Judicial Court to force the legislature to vote on the proposed amendment. The petition also asked the court to instruct the Massachusetts Secretary of State to place the referendum on the 2008 ballot if the legislature failed to vote on the amendment by January 2, 2007. (more)

On the first day that same-sex marriages were to be legal in Massachusetts, May 17, 2004, Romney instructed town clerks not to issue marriage licenses to out-of-state gay couples, except for those announcing their intention to relocate to the Commonwealth by referencing the "1913 law" (General Legislation, Part II, Title III, Chapter. 207 (Certain Marriages Prohibited), Sections 11, 12, & 13), which prohibits non-residents from marrying in Massachusetts if the marriage would be void in their home state...

The General Court in 1913 passed the three laws denying marriage rights to persons domiciled out-of-state who came to Massachusetts to circumvent their own states' anti-miscegenation marriage laws.

This is from the Wikipedia article. Does "The General Court" pass laws?

...Thus, Massachusetts was complicit in circumventing the Full Faith and Credit Clause (Article IV, Section 1) of the U.S. Constitution. Opponents of same-sex marriage similarly sought to circumvent the Full Faith and Credit Clause by passing the Defense of Marriage Act and by proposing a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

Romney was criticized for reviving a Jim Crow era piece of legislation that had avoided being nullifed by the U.S. Supreme Court's 1967 Loving v. Virginia decision due it not saying anything about race. However, Romney's actions were justified when, in March of 2006, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declared the statute legal under the state's constitution. (more) Romney declared the "ruling is an important victory for traditional marriage". He also stated, "It would have been wrong for the Supreme Judicial Court to impose its mistaken view of marriage on the rest of the country. The continuing threat of the judicial redefinition of marriage, here and in several other states, is why I believe that the best and most reliable way to preserve the institution of marriage is to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution." (more)

Romney subsequently released a statement in support of a proposed amendment to the Massachusetts state constitution defining marriage as existing only between "one man and one woman" in order to overrule the court's decision. His statement said, "the people of Massachusetts should not be excluded from a decision as fundamental to our society as the definition of marriage."

When he ran for governor in 2002, Romney declared his opposition to both same-sex marriage and civil unions. "Call me old fashioned, but I don't support gay marriage nor do I support civil union," said Romney in an October 2002 gubernatorial debate. He also voiced support for basic domestic partnership benefits for gay couples. Romney won the endorsement of the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts, a Republican gay-rights group, who in 2005 accused him of reneging on his 2002 campaign commitment to support some benefits for gay couples.

WHICH ONES? LETS DEAL WITH FACTS PEOPLE!

He also opposed an amendment, then before the General Court, that would have banned same-sex marriage and outlawed all domestic partnership benefits for gay couples. When campaigning in 2002, Romney's stated position was that "All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual orientation. While he does not support gay marriage, Mitt Romney believes domestic partnership status should be recognized in a way that includes the potential for health benefits and rights of survivorship."

During his 1994 campaign against Senator Edward Kennedy, Romney said that same-sex marriage "is not appropriate at this time" and pointed out that marriage was regulated under the jurisdiction of state laws. He also said his voice, as a Republican, would carry more weight on lesbian and gay issues than Kennedy's, even if they took the same position on issues like allowing gays and lesbians in the military...

This, is an oversimplification and a misrepresentation. The only quote from Romney on this issue, as far as I know, is that he believed that gays would eventually serve openly in the Military. He never to my knowledge advocated it, and I know he has never made it part of his campaign.

When seeking the campaign support of the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts, he said, "We must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern". He also supported federal legislation that would prohibit discrimination in the workplace against homosexuals.

Defending himself against "flip-flopping" in a telephone interview on Instapundit.com's "The Glenn & Helen Show", Romney asserted he had fought discrimination. In response to a question about his 1994 Senate race debate with Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Romney dismissed his pro-choice stance and positioning of himself as a political moderate as a youthful indiscretion. At the end of the interview Romney stated, "And I'm proud that at the same time I've fought discrimination. I believe that each American deserves equal opportunity. Now that's my record and maybe that's why people on this side are dredging up 13-year old history and attacking me now".

I've seen all sorts of errors on the wikipedia article, but I find this portion pretty well written.

I don't like how this sentense, "When he ran for governor in 2002, Romney declared his opposition to both same-sex marriage and civil unions" shows up at the bottom of the page. This is one of the biggest miss-understandings about Romney there are out there. The MSM has repeated hundreds and hundreds of times, the lie that Romney has changed his position on Gay Marriage. This is not the truth. I am so tired of correcting the lie, but I can't get tired, until the MSM stops repeating the lie. Romney has not changed his gay rights stance. Romney has not changed his gay rights stance! Get it into your freaking heads! His only change, has been on Abortion.

~ Mike

Character matter

"Character matters "

This article says:

"...As a candidate for governor of Massachusetts, Romney supported gay unions; now he opposes them ..."

How many times do we have to keep going over this? When he ran for governor in 2002, Romney declared his opposition to both same-sex marriage and civil unions. Click here for an article from 2002 showing this FACT. Here is a message to the main stream media. Stop saying lies. Especially things that can easily be shown as lies.

~ Mike

Obama more liberal than Kucinich, analysis reveals

Obama more liberal than Kucinich, analysis reveals

This is a must read for anyone who wants to see what is really going on.

WASHINGTON - The most liberal member of Congress running for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination isn't Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio.

It's Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois.

And the Republican candidate who's grown less conservative over his years in Congress? Sen. John McCain of Arizona...

The study, released this month by the National Journal, a respected inside-the-Beltway research report, will help voters cut through the spin and hype of TV sound bites in coming months and judge these candidates for themselves.

Unlike TV commercials that focus on a single vote, these rankings are based on comprehensive voting records. The 2006 scores, for example, were based on as many as 95 votes on such issues as federal spending, tax cuts, the war in Iraq, embryonic stem-cell research and border security.

On the Democratic side, the analysis of "lifetime" voting records shows Obama as the most liberal with a score of 84.3 after two full years in the Senate. The most liberal score possible was 99...

The rankings differ if you look only at their 2006 scores. That year Kucinich edged Obama by one point as the most liberal, and Clinton was the least liberal, as she sought re-election and prepared to launch her presidential campaign...

The year-to-year scores can reveal consistency or change. McCain, for example, grew increasingly less conservative in recent years...

McCain got a 46 for social issues - left of center...

Most Liberal: Barak Obama is #4!

Most Conservative. Jim Demint is #1, and endorses Mitt Romney !

~ Mike

Guns and the Media and Flips

I have compiled the truth on Mitt Romney's Gun Policy. I don't mean to sound arrogant. It wasn't that hard. I just found all of Romney's quotes and actions on the issue of Gun Control, and put them in context. I let you read the record, from the raw press releases, and decide for yourself. If the media was interested in finding the truth, they would link to this information. But they are not interested in finding the truth. They are interested in creating a boxing match and charging admission to see the fights. I have seen about 5 talking heads on Fox News say that Mitt Romney has flip-flopped on gun. I thought they reported, and let us decide? But no. They have decided for us. We are too stupid to think for ourselves. Why not check out his gun control policy and decide for yourself if he has flip-flopped.
 

Attck Launched

A new 527 is formed to broadcast lies about Mitt.

I've blogged about it, and links to the new 527 web sire are in the
post. So be aware.

http://capecodporcupine.blogspot.com/2007/03/fox-and-some-grapes.html

(apologies for any duplicates)

--
Yr. Obedient Servant,
Peter Porcupine

Best Speech yet?

Well there is a new entry to my list of Romney speeches. Click here to go directly to see the latest CPAC speech . As always (on my site), clicking on the word Education from the text of his speech will bring you to all the Romney "Education" Press Releases and quotes and stuff that I have found so far.

Today I also added something to my criticism of Romney page. The new addition is the accusation that, " Romney raised fees in Massachusetts." Have you guys heard this? You never hear people say what fees he raised. But aren't consumption taxes better than income taxes? Besides was Romney the person who raised fees or did cities raise fees? You never hear specifics...

Besides Romney's record on taxes is the best of the 2008 candidates by far. You need to go no farther than here to see that. Look at his record from 2002 on through today. It is awesome.

Contrast that to Rudy's. NYC debt rose by $16 billion during his tenure in office to a total of $43 billion, and by the end of his term New Yorkers were paying around $6 billion a year in interest alone. His record on debt screams incompetence.

As always, I am looking for additional info! Please help me if I forgot something...

~ Mike